Simply because outstanding liability at the end of the year is comparatively higher, considering the amount of expenditure incurred during the year, does not empower the AO to disallow the actual outstanding liability unless it is found that the liability shown was not genuine.
In our considered view, even if the assessee failed to put-in appearance, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL–II & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7028/2010 order dated 02.12.2010.
It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts with the related evidences and documents and thereafter should have arrived at a decision. Without verification of books of accounts produced before him and bringing any material on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as an afterthought.
The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of Rs. 2,01,000/- which includes income of Rs.1,07,890/- from M/s. Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of Rs.1,07,890/- is warranted. None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee.
The assessee has filed its return of income on 31-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee had claimed deduction at Rs. 1,91,400/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the income tax act. The Point of issue was the assessee has carried out the construction in violation of the original plan passed by AUDA and therefore violated the condition of section 80IB(10).
In his first fold of submission, he contended that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available which were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not disallowed any amount out of the interest expenses claimed on the borrowed funds.
The assessee submitted that the retention money which was payable after expiry of plant performance guarantee period is over, did not accrue to it on the supply of plant / equipment, hence the same cannot be considered as income of the assessee as the amount did not accrue or become due at that time.
By plain reading the words ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ in clause (b) of Explanation 3 to section 32 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’.
Author in this articles discusses recent decision of ITAT – Ahmedabad holding that: 1. an eligible assessee cannot be declined the Treaty protection under section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the ground that the said assessee has not been able to furnish a Tax Residency Certificate [TRC] in the prescribed form as required by the section 90(4).
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Amar Enterprise vs. ITO that in the present case, the AO has demonstrated that the assessee has continued business transactions with the concerned party. It is also not disputed that the assessee has received payments from the concerned party.
